State Bills in Brief: April 24-May 2

Apr 24, 2024

A weekly primer on the bills and committee hearings that have a direct impact on cities

By Brian Hendershot, Cal Cities Advocate managing editor. Additional contributions by the Cal Cities Advocacy Team

It’s a big week at the Capitol, as lawmakers and lobbyists alike are rushing to get bills with notable financial impacts to the appropriations committees. City leaders are in town testifying for sponsored measures, the Cal Cities Board adopted new policy positions, and Big City Mayors are urging lawmakers to make a homeless prevention program permanent.

Yesterday, the Cal Cities-sponsored AB 2330 (Holden) made it out of committee with bipartisan support. The bill would streamline wildfire preparedness efforts in high-fire severity zones.

“While progress has been made, proactive measures prove most effective,” La Verne Fire Chief Chris Nigg told lawmakers. “To manage fuel loads efficiently and protect the environmental and residential areas, we need streamlined processes, transparency, and greater clarification from state environmental agencies.”

Another sponsored measure, AB 2574 (Valencia), also passed out of committee. That bill would help the Department of Health Care Services provide better oversight and the ability to investigate financial relationships between recovery residences and licensed treatment facilities.

Also up this week: AB 2943 (Rivas and Zbur), the main vehicle for retail theft reform. The Cal Cities Board last week voted to take a support if amended position on the retail theft measure. These amendments center on aggregating multiple offenses, police officers’ authority to collect unsworn statements if they demonstrate probable cause, and probation.

As for the Big City Mayors: They urged lawmakers to restore funding to the REAP 2.0 program and commit to making HHAP funding ongoing. The group argued that ongoing funding allows cities to plan for the long term, which creates better services, accountability, and outcomes.

“We have a proven plan that is working,” Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer said of his city’s efforts. “What we cannot do now is slow or stop these efforts to help the most vulnerable among us. We will not be satisfied until we have helped every single person experiencing homelessness.”

To learn more about bills scheduled for a committee hearing through May 2, keep reading. To learn what each section means — or to access a previous State Bills in Brief — visit the archive page.

Hot bills

Local government coffers, organized retail theft, the builder’s remedy, and climate change are all in the hot seat this week.

Development fee restrictions would restrict critical services

What would the bill do? AB 1820 (Schiavo) would require cities to provide an itemized list during the preliminary application process within 20 days of a developer’s request. Cal Cities will oppose the measure unless the author provides a longer timeline, clarifies which fees it affects, and states that such estimations are nonbinding.
Why it matters. Local governments cannot raise property taxes. With very few ways to fund services, they must rely on impact fees to build new roads, sewer lines, fire stations, and even affordable housing.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 1:30 p.m. in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

Retroactive sales tax “reform”

A blanket ban. SB 1494 (Glazer) would prohibit cities from entering a sales tax rebate agreement with a retailer starting next year and void all existing agreements on Jan. 1, 2030. Cal Cities opposes the measure.
New Cal Cities policy. A diverse group of city managers and the Cal Cities Board approved a new sales tax rebate agreement policy last year. It calls for a cap on the duration of such agreements and the percentage of sales tax that can be rebated, enhanced transparency and public review, and equitable changes to county pool calculations.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 9:30 a.m. in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Hot labor summer rerun

Unemployment benefits for striking workers. SB 1116 (Portantino) would allow striking workers to draw unemployment benefits after two weeks. Cal Cities opposes the measure due to the severe, downward pressure it would apply to city budgets.
Didn't this already fail? When the Governor vetoed a similar measure last year, he said, “Now is not the time to increase costs or incur this sizable debt.”
When was the hearing? April 24 at 9:30 a.m. in the Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee.

Key retail safety measure advances to appropriations

Grand theft larceny. AB 1794 (McCarty) would clarify that prosecutors can aggregate the value of items stolen in multiple thefts into a single felony charge. Cal Cities supports the measure.
Now you see me, now you don’t. Thieves often steal small amounts of items under $950 across multiple businesses to avoid penalties.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 9:30 a.m. in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Cal Cities adopts a position for Assembly Speaker’s retail theft bill

What would the bill do? AB 2943 (Rivas and Zbur) would create a new crime of “serial retail theft,” allow police to arrest shoplifters without witnessing the crime, and define how multiple acts of theft with multiple victims can be aggregated into a felony charge of grand theft. Cal Cities has a supported if amended position for the bill.
Does this change Proposition 47? No. Lawmakers are loathe to propose any changes to Prop. 47, which would need to go before the voters for approval.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 9:30 a.m. in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Greater grant amounts for the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund

Targeted funding for community-based solutions. AB 1782 (Ta) would increase the amount of money cities can spend on homeless prevention and rapid rehousing services under a key state program. Cal Cities supports the measure.
Inconsistent funding. Nine in ten cities are concerned about their ability to provide homelessness services long-term. In many cities, the demand for housing and services is outpacing their efforts to connect people to services and safe, affordable housing.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 1:30 p.m. in the Senate Health Committee.

No more self-certification for housing elements

Changing housing element law. AB 1886 (Alvarez) would remove the ability of cities to self-certify housing plans that are “in substantial compliance with housing element law.” This would encourage more developers to bypass local zoning laws in favor of the so-called builder’s remedy. Cal Cities opposes the measure.
Not helpful. Housing elements take years to develop. Cities often receive unclear or conflicting guidance about their plans. Instead of punishing good faith efforts, the state should help cities finalize their housing elements and put those plans to work.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 1:30 p.m. in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

Builder’s remedy safeguards come with a price

The good. AB 1893 (Wicks) would place some guardrails on builder’s remedy projects by restricting their location and density. Cities could also use objective development standards in some circumstances.
The bad. Cities could no longer reject certain housing developments if they have met or exceeded their state housing goals. Cal Cities has taken an oppose unless amended position on AB 1893. The state should specify how cities can get a compliant housing element to avoid things like the builder’s remedy before further restricting local control.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 1:30 p.m. in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

Cal Cities-sponsored measure would help reduce methane emissions

Bill changes. SB 972 (Min) would require CalRecycle to strengthen its assistance efforts to help cities actively working to reduce organic waste in landfills and methane emissions. The agency would also need to report back to the Legislature on the organic waste diversion progress and how to better align the law with the state’s other climate goals.
Room for improvement. A 2023 report found that the amount of organic waste in landfills increased by a million tons between 2014 and 2020, a trend at odds with the goal of reducing methane emissions. Greater local assistance and accountability are key to progress – which SB 972 would provide.
When was the hearing? The bill was set on consent in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on April 24.

A familiar labor bill

What would the bill do? AB 2421’s (Low) would restrict internal investigations to the detriment of employees and the public. It could limit investigations into workplace harassment, misconduct, and safety as well as silence witnesses. Cal Cities opposes the measure.
What the last Governor said. When Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar measure in 2013, he noted it would put a union agent on equal footing with one’s spouse, priest, doctor, or lawyer.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 9:30 a.m. in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Cal Cities-supported facial recognition bill

You read that right. AB 1814 (Ting) would stop police from using facial recognition technology-generated matches as the sole basis for probable cause in an arrest, search, or warrant. Cal Cities supports the measure.
Accountability and access. Facial recognition is just one tool that law enforcement officers use to generate leads. This bill requires reasonable safeguards while also allowing officers to use this technology to prevent criminal activity.
When is the hearing? April 30 at 1:30 p.m. in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

Priority bills

This week, lawmakers are considering some possibly productive housing law changes, along with some positive retail theft, autonomous vehicles, and climate change measures.

Assembly bill shifts housing infrastructure costs to cities

Developer piggy bank. Under AB 2729 (Patterson, Joe), cities could only collect development fees after a final inspection or a certificate of occupancy is issued, with some exceptions. Cal Cities opposes the measure.
Time is money. This is true for developers and cities. Local agencies rely on these fees to pay for essential infrastructure: roads, sidewalks, parks, and lighting.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 9:00 a.m. in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.

Retail theft bill bevy

Study bill. AB 1772 (Ramos) would require the Department of Justice to quantify the number of misdemeanor convictions for retail theft during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Organized retail theft. AB 1802 (Jones-Sawyer) would eliminate the sunset date for the crime of organized retail theft that was chaptered in 2017.
Grant funding. AB 1845 (Alanis) would provide money for joint investigations into fencing operations.
Low-risk crime. AB 1972 (Alanis) would help reduce cargo theft. California is reportedly one of the nation’s top three hotspots for cargo theft.
When were the hearings? April 24 at 9:30 a.m. in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Cal Cities supports all four measures.

Changes to newly minted housing laws

Nibbling away at local control. AB 2243 (Wicks) would expand a recent law that requires cities to automatically approve some housing projects in areas zoned for office, retail, or parking. Cal Cities opposes the measure.
Additional time to implement would be nice. Cities are still working to update their housing plans based on the dozens of new laws recently passed. Before making more changes, lawmakers should ensure cities have the tools and resources needed to comply with state law first before extending it further.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 1:30 p.m. in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

Ensuring housing element assistance

Transparency goes both ways. AB 2485 (Carrillo, Juan) would require HCD to publish data sources, analyses, and methods before finalizing regional housing needs and assemble an advisory panel for future revisions. Cal Cities supports the measure.
Why it matters. Making this information readily available would build trust, ensure accountability, and help cities create more effective housing strategies.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 1:30 p.m. in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

Flexible office conversions

The carrot, not the stick. AB 2910 (Santiago) would make it easier for cities to repurpose underused commercial and industrial spaces into residential housing. Cal Cities supports the measure.
It’s a cliche, but it’s true. COVID-19 fundamentally changed how we work, leading to increased demand for remote and hybrid work in many cities. This measure would reduce housing shortages, commercial real estate woes, and urban sprawl.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 1:30 p.m. in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

Hire your own inspector

A concerning debate. AB 2433 (Quirk-Silva) would allow applicants to pay for a third-party inspection during a construction project. Directly paying a “regulator” (a private individual in this case) creates biased results. Cal Cities opposes the measure unless it is amended.
But also. Related laws and ordinances that jurisdictions must enforce change regularly. It is their responsibility to ensure that each project is built in a manner that complies with those laws. A far better approach would be to focus on expediting the permitting process, like those already in place for broadband microtrenches.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 9 a.m. in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.

Updating insurance underwriting models

A fair solution. SB 1060 (Becker) would require insurers to consider wildfire risk mitigation efforts when setting insurance costs for homeowners. Cal Cities supports the measures.
An insurance crisis. Public agencies and private individuals have ramped up wildfire mitigation efforts. Not accounting for these activities has caused some home insurers to pull out of the state or curtail their operations — including two more just last week.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 1:30 p.m. in the Senate Insurance Committee.

Operate it or ticket

A safe, sensible solution. AB 2286 (Aguiar-Curry) would require a human safety operator for the use of medium- and heavy-duty autonomous vehicles on public roads for testing purposes. Cal Cities supports the measure.
We still have the edge on robots. Self-driving cars cannot predict and recognize risk quickly. They are simply not as quick as a human brain. There are safety concerns about heavy autonomous vehicles, especially those weighing many times that of the average passenger car.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 1:30 p.m. in the Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee.

Helping cities meet organic waste targets

What is the bill? AB 2346 (Lee) would provide additional credits and flexibility for cities when procuring recovered organic waste products. Cal Cities supports the measure.
Why it matters. A report last year found that cities need more flexibility to meet the state’s organic waste reduction goals.
When was the hearing? April 24 at 9:30 a.m. in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Planning for future droughts

What would the bill do? SB 1330 (Archuleta) would clarify several key provisions in the long-term water use standards under a new water conservation law. This includes simplifying the processes to submit information, clarifying reporting dates, and extending deadlines since the regulations are two years behind the statutory deadline.
Why is this important? Water use will be regulated through these new long-term water use standards. Water usage will need to go down over time for residential indoor and outdoor uses and commercial outdoor uses where there are meters in urban areas. The goal is to prevent mandatory water cuts during the next drought.
When was the bill heard? April 23 at 9:00 a.m. in Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, where the bill received unanimous support.

View all tracked bill hearings.